[[Deliberate Values Dissonance]] - is this appropriate to describe the attitude of Candie and the other slavers?
I thought an important aspect of the trope was otherwise sympathetic characters doing things that we would now dispise/disaprove of, but would have been seen as normal at the time.
But the film makes it abundantly clear that the slavers are the bad guys, the good guys are the people opposing them.
Hide / Show Replies
Well some would probably disagree with Schulz's law enforcement methods if they were to encounter them today...
In the big shoot-out after the climax at Candie's, Django, lying on the corpse that absorbs enemy bullets, head-shots one guy standing in the front door and misses another, but hits the wall next to him — splinters get into his eye, causing him to scream loudly and swear, as he's pretty much eliminated from the engagement from then on. It happens at approximately 2h 13m 10s into the movie. Could this be regarded as the Eye Scream trope?
Nvm, solved.
Edited by pecelot
Why is Stephen listed as the Dragon? I think Candie works better as the Dragon, this is even shown when he is first encountered at the Cleopatra Club, as he smokes the pipe he exhales the smoke from his nostrils clearly resembling a dragon. I see Stephen as the Wotan character, Broomhilda disobeyed him when asked to tell the truth so he placed the dragon(Candie), and hellfire(?) around her separating her from her Siegfried(Django) by informing Candie of the batman gambit.
Hide / Show Replies
The Dragon trope doesn't have anything to do with dragons (I think there was some meaning drift at some point)- it is basically the " chief enforcer" of the Big Bad. Having read the screenplay (not sure how much this carried over to the final movie), Stephen seems like the trope Dragon-in-Chief- while loyal to the Big Bad (Candie), he is a quite independent actor and exerts authority over Candie.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
Stephen seems like a straight up Dragon, in chief or otherwise, because he is utterly loyal to Candie - and he is still Candie's slave. When he sees Django riding in, he kicks up a storm, but it's deflated by Candie who even yells him down when he gets too far. Candie is definitely in charge... at least when he cares to be.
Isn't an important part of [[The Dragon]] trope that they are an obstacle that the hero has to defeat before they can deal with the Big Bad? That doesn't fit here.
Would Django's use of "D'Artagnan, motherfucker!" before shooting the plantation workers count as a pre-asskicking one liner?
Anyone else get an urge to rewatch this film after Twelve Years A Slave? The latter is a brilliant film, but the faithfulness to the true story basically means there is no catharsis, no justice, no release for the impotent rage you can't help but feel towards the slavers.
Watching an hour or two of a freed slave living out a no-holds-barred revenge fantasy sounds pretty good, after that.
Why do people think Schultz killed Candie? I had edited Honor Before Reason to reflect that Schultz probably killed Candie because Candie discovered his Batman Gambit and lost (making Schultz, as Candi claims, a really bad loser). The Man In Black rather rudely claimed that that was 'just wrong,' and deleted it. And while I don't disagree that Schultz's obvious moral pangs influenced that decision (I should have made that clearer in the first place), there is a very, very definite implication (Candie's assertions notwithstanding) that if everything had gone according to plan Schultz would have been more than willing to shake Candie's hand (as I recall, Schultz did shake Candie's hand while a fight to death between two slaves was going on in the same room). Rather than simply re-insert my edit (with some clarification), I wanted to see if people agreed or disagreed before I risked natter.
Hide / Show Replies
I haven't seen this mentioned, but I got the impression that when Candie asked to shake Schultz's hand, he was planning to shoot Schultz (because Schultz disrespected him with the "goodbye line). Thus, the primary reason for Schultz's hesitation was he feared for his life. I figure when Candie insists on the handshake, Schultz recognizes he's a dead man no matter what he does, so he chooses the course of action that leaves Candie dead.
It was a combination of Schultz disgust for the man as well as Schultz being unable to accept that he was no longer in charge of the situation.
Interesting... though when Schultz and Candie did shake hands, Schultz hadn't been oversaturated with Candie's unenlightened ways.
One can argue that forcing two strong men to fight to the death is not quite as steep a Moral Event Horizon as feeding a clearly helpless one to dogs while still alive, especially not to a man like Schultz, who is an old bounty-hunter.
In fact Schultz was expecting the presence of te death matches as his cover.
Finally I think a lot of tropers will agree that the Honor Before Reason theorem (if you will) is more appealing and in line with the character.
One aspect to it: Schultz is playing a part. When he first shakes Candie's hand, it's in-character. He can distance himself from it, psychologically. The second time, it's unambiguously him making a deal with Candie.
The scene where Broomhilda gently pours out the glass of water before fainting, as opposed to just dropping it right away, is listed as a Does This Remind You of Anything?. I'm embarrassed to say I'm totally baffled as to what this is a reference to. Can anyone explain?
Hide / Show Replies
Possibly a reference to her wetting herself? Don't think it really makes sense though, in that context.
Just removed another example of that same trope.
Edited by 85.210.125.113
I'd like to ask just why this film has been labeled as "controversial". I haven't seen or heard of any "controversy" surrounding this film. In fact, there hasn't been much talk of it at all in the mainstream media. Based on the research I've done, all the "controversy" seems to stem from blogs or websites that seem, more or less, to be trying to stir up some kind of "controversy" just for the hell of it. Just because a film features slavery does not automatically make it controversial.
If no one can give a valid defense of the term, I'm deleting it.
Edited by Severen Hide / Show Replies
Well... the gratuitous rape scenes have had some heated controversy. It's being discussed in YMMV.
"Based on the research I've done, all the "controversy" seems to stem from blogs or websites that seem, more or less, to be trying to stir up some kind of "controversy" just for the hell of it" - That's where pretty much all controversy comes from. Knee jerk reactions, groupthink, and people stirring the pot to their own gain. Now, sometimes they DO have something they rightly should be aghast at, but in this case we'll just have to see when the movie comes out.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Apparently Spike Lee had an issue with how much the n-word was being used in the film. Otherwise, there aren't any rape scenes, not in the theatrical cut, at least.
Edited by GovernorExplosion “Dude, sucking at something is the first step to being sorta good at something!” - Jake the Dog
Where have you guys been? Black people are practically rioting in the streets. People had a serious problem with the fact Tarantino (white) was making a movie with slavery in it. Many more people had a problem with the usage of the word 'nigger' in the movie. Which is stupid, because a lot worse happened in the movie besides the usage of the word nigger. Spike Lee and Katt Williams are only the beginning of the stars that throw shade on the movie. But then again, the people that dislike the movie 9 times out of 10 have not seen it yet.
Edited by xayshade
"Black people are practically rioting in the streets."
I hope to God you're being sarcastic.
If not, consider the movie in a nutshell: A black slave gets freedom, guns and lessons in gunplay from a cool old German then blows away a few literal tons of hillbillies in an ultimately successful quest to save and free his wife.
That is all.
- Actor Allusion:
- Schultz lies about having a history in the circus. This might be a deliberate reference to Waltz playing a circus owner in the film adaptation of Water For Elephants, or it might be a coincidence.
- Christoph Waltz has a private conversation in a foreign language to hide his real intentions.
- Jamie Foxx's Django meets Franco Nero, who played the original Django in the 1960s.
"The 'D' is silent."
"I know." - Don Johnson's Big Daddy character wears all-white, a reference to his Miami Vice character.
- When Django and Schultz deliver the bodies of the Wilson-Lowe gang, we can see a dead rabbit hung by the legs on the hut. The sheriff invites them to eat some cake. Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays a villain called Candie, played Amsterdam, the leader of a gang called the Dead Rabbits, in Gangs of New York.
- David Steen plays Mr. Stonesipher, Candie's dog handler. Last time Steen worked with Quentin Tarantino, he played a dog-handling cop in Reservoir Dogs.
- Jamie Foxx assisting a very suave and cold-blooded Caucasian assassin in grey in killing people? Sounds familiar.
There's a sliding scale here from "obvious, dialogue allusion to a former role" through "costume allusion", to "hey, if you twist this thing that way and squint a bit, it almost looks like a different film one of these actors was in!" I've removed a couple of them, but is there any non-subjective way to draw the line between allusion and coincidence?
Hide / Show Replies
I agree that most of these "allusions" are probably coincidences, but Wikipedia does state that Big Daddy's costume was influenced by Miami Vice.
Yeah, that's one I left. It was more the Collateral and Gangs of New York ones I was questioning (I mean, there's a dead rabbit in the film? It's not even in one of DiCaprio's scenes!)
Edited by johnnye
Knowing Tarantino's penchant for lots and lots of references in his films (especially movie references), I wouldn't be surprised if these are actual shoutouts. If anything, Stonesipher's character is most likely an allusion, since Tarantino is also fond of making callbacks to previous works.
It seems to me that Candie's masked female goon should fall under some trope but I'm not sure what. Simply by being... well, obviously female but wearing male clothes and a mask makes her noticable and then we get a good long close up of her late in the film. Definitely seems like she is going to do something important but then she gets gunned down with the other mooks with no fanfare.
What (if any) trope would this fall under?
Hide / Show Replies
They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot, I think. Quentin's fond of introducing in seemingly important characters, then killing them off.
Potential Crowning Moment of Awesome - whilst filming the scene around the dinner table whilst a lecture on the 'science' behind slavery is given, Leo slammed his hand on the table so hard, he cut it open. The next few scenes, his hand is clearly covered in blood. He didn't break character and, naturally, the version that made it into the final film is the one where he cut himself accidently. When he smears his bloody hand across Kerry Washington's face, she doesn't look too thrilled, possibly due to Enforced Method Acting.
Hide / Show Replies
I'm not so sure about Django being a Type IV or V anti-hero.
Considering what the man went through and the setting (overlapping but separate aspects) he's practically a saint. I've been watching a lot of Stargate SG-1 lately and I don't know how any of the SG-1, who are "proper" Good Guys would have fared in Django's place - no amount of SG-1 diplomacy and Mc Gyvering would have gotten them through in the real Deep South, let alone Tarantino's Deep South.
The only properly anti-heroic or even villainous line I remember him saying is "fuck the farmer, and I'm gonna steal that horse," when planning with the good doctor, and he seems to agree when Schultz points out the glaring hole in that approach.
I see Schultz as a type II anti-hero if not a straight up Guile Hero (especially during his highly dangerous sabbatical from bounty hunting that proves to be his undoing) and Django himself as a solid type III - you do not want to piss him off, but you DO want him on your side especially if things go south.
TL, DR: In such a brutal setting you can't be a gentle hero... at least not unless you're basically invincible
or as near as makes no difference.
Thoughts?
Edited by rottenvenetic Hide / Show Replies
Well, the fact that Schultz (and Django following his teaching) kill all their bounties is pretty morally grey and rather unnecessary- it says Dead Or Alive on the posters for a reason- it is legal for them to always choose Dead, but not necessarily moral (there may be some kind of analogy to slavery here in the sense of legal, but not moral).
Django also is solely concerned with freeing his wife and doesn't really give a damn about helping any other slave, except as an incidental part of his plans. This seems like an obvious reflection of Spaghettie Westerns having a Heroic Neutral protagonist who will tend to display Not in This for Your Revolution toward any cause that he helps.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
Seems right enough about Django, but what about Schultz killing his bounties? Corpses are easier to transport than reluctant prisoners, and back then if any man was wanted "dead or alive" it's a pretty safe bet he was waiting for a noose, or at the very least prison, likely hard labour, to the end of his days (which would generally not mean more than a few years even for an initially healthy young man). Schultz's paralels between slavery and bounty hunting, while not invalid as such, strike me more as Self-Deprecation.
Then again, my argument is coloured by the opinion that violent criminals are enough of a problem without being freed from worrying about sudden Karmic Death.
While I disagree with rottenvetic's point at the end of his post it is true almost all of them would get hung if they where brought in alive and so it makes sense he didn't particularly care about bringing them in alive.
What's the deal with those stupid-looking collars made seemingly from gate bars? Most muzzled slaves seemed to wear them, including Django at one point.
Aside from some limited utility in snagging stuff if the slave somehow found a way to run away effectively (which involves getting rid of their fetters) but not to take off the collar...
Seriously, what's with those things?
Hide / Show Replies
They're uncomfortable and heavy. Makes it hard to run. They aren't invented for the film either.
They're meant to humiliate the slaves who ran away more than anything else.
Cleric of Banjo
I see one troper maybe more keeps changing the name of Broomhilda to Brunhilde. I know that the latter is more correct, but the former is actually how the name is spelled in the script, found here. So, it should stay as Broomhilda on the pages here.
I'm guessing the spelling choice is some combination of a) Tarantino misspelling it, b) Tarantino deliberately choosing a more "ridiculous" spelling, or c)Broomhilda being how an American would probably spell/interpret the German name.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki Hide / Show Replies
I changed it once, until I found out (and I still find it hard to believe) that "Broomhilda" dispite being a fucking comic strip character name is the correct name as per the script. I have not changed it since.
I also saw a 'don't change the name to Brunhilde message on the wikipedia article, so I would imagine that a few other people assumed Broomhilda had to be a typo there as well as here.
That said, and no matter how stupid it reads, Broomhilda is 'correct' so please leave it alone fellow tropers.
add pithy quote here.
What would be a good trope to describe the death of Tarantino's character?
Hide / Show Replies
I noticed a really subtle visual echo in this film. Early on, Schultz shakes Django's hand, which pretty much consolidates their friendship/partnership. Later, Schultz refuses to shake hands with Candie, which results in both their deaths. Not sure which trope applies here.
Hide / Show Replies
Nothing that I know of, unless it can be a new trope. It's just Schultz putting Honor Before Reason - he is willing to scrub his mission and his life to avoid shaking hands with Candie.
Just Here for Godzilla: Alright, I'm a Tarantino fan, but mostly I watched this for another award-winning supporting actor performance by Christoph Waltz. Anyone else?
Should Stephen fall under The Quisling, Les Collaborateurs or another trope for working for Candie against the interest of his people?
Hide / Show Replies
Hmm, possibly Boomerang Bigot depending on any attitudes he expressed. Also thinking Happiness in Slavery (literally) is at least one appropriate trope. In most situations, it isn't really appropriate to refer to someone as a "traitor to their race", but this could be one time where it is an appropriate characterization of the character. Less controversially, I can also see Servile Snarker being appropriate.
(Haven't seen the movie yet but have read up on it, including some of the screenplay)
Edited by Hodor Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
I was wondering if it would be okay to add this as an example: